7909 a month. >> gaal but need 775, 383882, or visit home serve.com from here we'll tell you this in these territories. >> they don't come try you. they will take from you you are

wiped clean from this led don't want to go and take that gun and wrap you with it what we talked enough that american drawing to a close, the jury now deliberating as the defendant is waiting, americans will soon see if a former and possibly future president could become a convicted felon. plus new cnn reporting on how a cyber attack on a hospital is putting patients lives in danger nurses at several hospitals are now speaking out about a threat and a decision by major league baseball gives several league players stars the recognition that they we're denied for decades to watershed moment for america's pastime and american history we're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in, right? get

here to cnn news central waiting on a verdict, i'm boris sanchez alongside briana keeler and the nation's capital and right now the 12 person jury and former president trump's hush money trial continues let's to deliberate going on more than 3.5 hours now, three hours and 33 minutes to be exact. >> jurors have a lot to hash out. trump is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress stormy daniel's that was made just before the 2016 election. >> and the longer for these deliberations go on, the more team trump thinks it is to their advantage, sources telling us that there is a general belief in trump's orbit that every minute the jury continues to deliberate is better for the former president cnn's paula reid is outside of the courthouse in new york. polo. what are you watching right now is jurors are

continuing to weigh trump's fate well, moments ago, the buzzer went off inside the courtroom or colleagues or inside at keeping an eye on things and typically, when that buzzer sounds, it means that the jury as a question. >> but at this point, it's unclear exactly what is going on. most of the reporters have filed back into the courtroom, but our colleagues say they're still waiting for the parties where the prosecutors, the defense attorneys or the defendant, and the judge. now, as we've reported, the defendant, he had asked to remain inside the courthouse during these deliberations, so he is close by and we'll be watching and waiting to see what exactly the jury has to say. >> this would be pretty quick to come back with a verdict. >> but at this point, it is unclear why that buzzer sounded. who has been widely expected though that this jury would likely have some questions is it about this case? not only did they have this historic deliberation that they have undertaken, they also don't have access to all the evidence, so they've heard of the past several weeks, they have a laptop with some of the evidence, but for example, they

don't have access to transcripts from a testimony by key witnesses it's like stormy daniels, hope hicks, or michael cohen is widely expected that after they were in there for a couple of hours, got a sense of where all the jurors were at in terms of this case, but they would likely have questions either about the evidence or about the law. but at this point, again, our colleagues are inside he said they've heard the buzzer. it's not clear if this is a question, but that use what they expect. this is likely a question from the jury, but there's still waiting for everyone to come back in the courthouse, know if this is a question the way this would work is the question would be red and then of course, both sides suddenly back in the courthouse, know if this is a question the way this would work is the question would be red and then of course, both sides suddenly entering this game of trying to figure out what exactly it means. you tried to read the

much. briana. >> athe question

skin was no longer mine. my fro significantly reduce joint pain, stiffness, and swelling. it's just six doses a year after to starter doses cbd is allergic reactions may occur, can fire, may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them until you doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine, are planning to emerge as you emerge trim fired. ask your doctor about trump via the future is not just going to happen, you have to make it. and if you want a successful business, all it takes is an idea and now becomes a future where you grew a dream into a reality we all knew, go daddy arrow, put your business online in minutes with the power of ai, close captioning brought to you by meso book.com if you or a loved

one have mesothelial mac will send you a free book to answer questions you may have call now and we'll come to you 800 ha one 4,000 all right. we are following the latest in the trump hush money trial, which is that the jury has sent any note asking for four things testimony from david pecker and michael cohen, four different instances where right now you have lawyers figuring out what but they're going to share with the jury to answer their questions. let's bring in former trump attorney william brennan. he represented trump payroll in the trump org payroll case. i think i have that. correct. their william william tell us what you think of what the jury is requesting here. david pecker's testimony regarding a phone conversation with trump while pecker was in the investor meeting. pecker's testimony about the decision not to finalize and fund assignment of karen mcdougal's life rights and then pecker's testimony regarding a trump tower meeting. same for michael

cohen's testimony one, there below a briana and bars. it's hard to read the tea leaves this early, but it shows that the jury is approaching this in a systematic fashion. they're going back maybe chronologically, and they want to see what pecker said about these two instances. i think they also asked for pecker's testimony and cohen's testimony about the trump tower meeting that may be done to compare the two. but it i think just shows that they're working hard and there were working chronologically to get through the evidence in the case have you were on the defense team in this case, would this signal to you that the jury is entertaining the prosecution, at least in the way that the closing argument was laid out because it seemed to zoom in on some of these very key aspects. >> that are essential to their argument in this testimony bars it. may. i mean, certainly i

think it would be unrealistic to think that the jury would just disregard all of the prosecutions arguments. there are a lot of points the prosecution made that ring true and makes sense, but it's important to remember here that to get to that promised land of a felony they need to connect it to the intent to influence the election or violates some type of campaign finance law or election law. so they could go through all of this fairly routine, mundane testimony determined that certain acts occurred, but when they get to the end of the story, they may not find that they occurred with the intent to influence the election and then that would result in acquittal. >> as you think of these moments in the testimony, including from the trump tower meeting, is there anything that stands out to you, william,

that you think would interest the jury when they have this testimony read back to them? >> well, brand it's a bit of a two edged sword because the jury heard about the lying doorman with the $30,000 for the illegitimate child who didn't exist. they heard about the mcdougal scenario, then they heard from ms clifford, from stormy daniel's and they could look at it. one of two ways. they could say, well, these things happen we saw it happen with governor schwarzenegger with all cogen, with many other celebrities and this is the way people in that world work. or they could look at it and say this is nefarious and the daniels payment was done because the defendant was in the midst of an election. that's really what the case will hinge on. >> william. i i'm wondering when it comes to that specific portion of the testimony, the

testimony from david pecker about deciding not to finalize and fund the assignment of karen mcdougal's life rights how does that affect this case? what do you think the jury is trying to glean specifically, there well, you know, that's an interesting point and question bars because that really shouldn't have a direct effect on the verdict in this case. >> this is about the daniels payment, but the other two instances were introduced and it could have a spillover effect on the issue that they're really looking to solve. but it seemed to me, you know, just from the cheap seats that the net effect of that testimony was positive for the defense in that it showed a couple of things. it showed that these things occur more often than those of us in the general public probably realized. and that they're not illegal and it's the way that these people do business. this this lawyer davidson, he

apparently find thanks people in trouble and then exploits that to his benefit or to his clients benefit. and pecker plays a similar but different role in that cycle of a drama. and it is shocking is it may be and is distasteful as these acts may be there are apparently not illegal all right. >> william, thank you so much for your insights. if you can stand by for us as we know the lawyers are now working to figure out there doing very exciting things like marking up pages. then they'll have to come to a consensus right about what they're going to share with the jury. it takes time. these are four pretty complex, i would say things when they're putting the testimony together, you just heard moved. williams said any any comments on what you heard him say there? >> what one thing that jumps out to me, the jury's asking for two different people there's a count of the same meeting, david pecker, michael cohen, both referring to the important august 2015 meeting. my recollection is that their

testimony about that meeting is largely mutually consistent, not identical. no two people are ever going to have an exactly identical account of it. but consistent for the most part, i think as a prosecutor, you like that because remember the central theme of the prosecution? closing yesterday was corroboration. you don't have to believe michael cohen in a vacuum. look at the checks, and this is a good example of that. if you don't maybe trust michael cohen in a vacuum, you go well, okay. cross check it against david pecker's testimony about the same meeting. so i think what we're going to see in the jury's probably going to hear sun is more or less mutual italy reinforcing consistent testimony. >> and what does it actually look like in court when this testimony is pulled like what's how does it work? >> so as we said before the break, the judge will come to some consensus for conclusion as to which portions that everybody can agree on or at least that they don't agree on. but he thinks ought to be read. and then in effect, the court reporter or a ct staffer will simply read them in a neutral tone, not ascribing value to what anybody is saying, but simply reading the

words on the page. so this is from page like elliott said, a little bit earlier, 2006, lines eight to 642 or whatever and then just read them in a neutral tone. okay, this next steps excerpt is page 2008. and then reading from there methodically and then just send the jury back good work and he may give a little bit of an instruction as to what he's doing. ladies and gentlemen, you have requested this information. i've worked with the attorneys to find you precisely the information you need. here it is. read it, and then sum them this will take a bit, by the way, that the time right, i mean, because first and we just had a note that joshua steinglass is going through a tall stack of transcripts at the market. first, the parties and the judge have to get together. i mean, this is for requests at once. a lot of times you just get one at a time so first they have to pick the transcripts, then they have to redact out, right? if there's an objection in the middle, that'll get redacted out high-stakes redacting happening here when they finally set the four pieces of testimony, they're going to read to the jury. i mean, that could take a half-hour an hour, easy then

they bring the jury in and then the reebok happens. i mean, this is going to take us to the end if they do leave as planned at 4:30, this will take us, i believe, through four 30. yeah. really good point about the objections because we had the benefit as the public of watching them all in real time. him and actually seeing what the attorneys were arguing with the judge, except for that one moment where the judge even kicked the media out the jury is not allowed to see that because technically, it struck from the record, even if they heard it, the first time around. so they've got to figure out which portions literally to excise. the black it out or just simply skip over it and pretend as if they didn't happen. all of this is a very time-consuming process and just think about how long we listened to some of these witnesses testify. four, and they're asking for what could be an hour for hours, more than one minute? >> a tedious process, one that may be integral to avert it yeah. >> yeah, certainly all right. let's standby because obviously some important work being done there, as we know that former president trump is talking with one of his attorneys. all of this going on. is there to work out what they're going to be reading

back to the jury will squeezing a quick break and be right back i have moderate to severe crohn's disease. >> now, they're sky rosie, things are looking up. afghan control means everything to me feel significant symptom relief at four weeks with sky rosie, including less abdominal pain and fewer bowel movements. >> sky rosie is the first il-13 inhibitor that can deliver remission and visibly improved damage of the intestinal lining. and the majority of people experienced long-lasting remission at one year. >> serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or lower ability to fight them may occur tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms had a vaccine or plan to liver problems may occur in crohn's disease now's the time to ask your gun mr. enter ology is how you can take control of your crohn's with sky rosie learn how fe

could help you save in one of the most active 22 seasons. ever, you can't control a tornado what kinds of interventions can we design go inside the store premiere of lining earth with the leon schreiber. >> sunday had nine on cnn men tell us when they use just for men to eliminate gray, there's a great before and after. >> then. there's the after the after that boost you get when you look and feel your best. and that's why more men menchu, just for men still not confident about which used car to buy nope. why not asked the most confident person, you know, my old high school coach this one's got talent, toughness, the world, the way in let me coach you on this. >> just say show me the car facts value you'll get the most accurate price of vehicles accident look for me and stop

overpaying shop at the all new car facts.com there's some new players in town and they brought the plank hi my attention. >> your want public kingston everywhere, but the seat to seat is levs. now, i get it. you love your bike? we didn't do. >> that's why we're american number one motorcycle insurer. >> but do you have to wedge it and everything will do that? >> let's, reminds me of my blank the wolf was about the size of my new motorcycle. have you seen it by the way but i ground really look how the brushstrokes bottle the line of a gas tank problem of plus one jamie e're trying to save the

planet with nuggets because we need the planet and we also need nuggets i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app.

can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity. learned fox on capitol hill and welcome back to news central. >> we're tracking the breaking news in the donald trump hush money case, the jury sending a

note to judge juan nmr, sean moments ago, making four requests for testimony, both from david pecker per and michael cohen. key moments potentially in this case. let's take you out outside the courthouse now with cnn's kaitlan collins. she's alongside kristen holmes and paula reid kaitlan. these are pretty substantial requests for testimony. this is no doubt going to take awhile yeah, it's interesting part where you don't want to read too much into it because we don't know what's happening inside that jury room, but also you want to read a lot into it because we are desperate to know what they are debating or deliberating and what part of this debate that they are at right now, we're still waiting on the actual jury to be brock. >> it brought into the courtroom as it appears that the two parties are still trying to make sure they have exactly which parts of the testimony that the jury here is asking about. they got this note about an hour ago that buzzer when often inside the courtroom, it got everyone's attention as they were waiting to see what it was that the jury had in mind, and it turned

out it was a note requesting four different pieces of testimony, all related to two crucial witnesses here, one, a tabloid king david pecker, and to michael cohen. of course, trump's former fixer and attorney, who is at the center of all of this and pull it we can't read too much into this because we don't know. but but if you were looking at how the closing arguments went, the prosecution pointed to david pecker's testimony a lot as christa noted earlier, they called it it and it was quite testimony because it directly tied trump to this plot of covering up certain stories. >> and michael cohen is about trump tower meeting. >> none of this is about looking necessarily at the checks are the invoices we know they can do that on the laptop that they have, but it is interesting to see which portions of this testimony they feel they need to hear to assist them. >> yeah. and there's others have sayyed and we indicated initially, it suggests that they're going through the case chronologically, and that's something that prosecutors did yesterday during their closing arguments. they went back to what they believe is the beginning of the alleged

conspiracy. will here shortly, the portions of the testimony back, but it suggests are going through this chronologically, which also signals that almost impossible that we'll get a verdict today. and it could be a few days so they're going to go through sort of week-by-week, go through all of these key moments and discuss them. this could take awhile, but this really, this makes sense. this is not a huge surprise that they'd wanted thank hear more about david pecker when you have multiple people in a meeting that's so critical. and again, prosecutors argued this was the first the first action, the first step that was taken in this alleged conspiracy to help trump when in 2016 it really makes sense that this would be their first question in many ways is what we expected. >> yeah. and obviously, trump has been sitting in the courtroom also waiting to see he how the jury deliberations are going. he's on l2 allowed to leave while the jury is there deliberating, he's instead also in an a separate room waiting to see what they're also talking about yeah. >> and it will note this caveat before i say what i'm going to say, which is that no one actually knows anything including trump's team, but they are trying to read the tea leaves and they do feel more

optimistic given the length of deliberation. once again they do not know anything, but just like everybody else, they are trying to find some indication of which way the jury is leaning and they felt like there was a possibility early on that there could could be potentially a very quick turnaround and it would be a conviction right away, meaning it would be political. i think that follow we have some, we have something that's happening once again this buzzer inside the core has just gone off now, right before that, the lawyers, they're working on the transcripts, they're reviewing what they think should be read back. >> our colleagues described i'm just being a waiting mode so right now this buzzer has gone off again. it's unclear if this means that jury is coming in again if they're ready or if they just continued to work while the lawyers figure out the transcripts and that they perhaps have another request or another notes we're waiting right now for our colleagues inside to give us a live update. what does this buzzer me is this another record? quest? what exactly does it signal? because usually when that goes off, it means that the jury is trying to

communicate with the courtroom. they need something. we obviously just got this request reported from the testimony. so now, it's possible if they sounded this again, they could have another request or maybe they're potentially clarifying because there was a bit of confusion on the third point what they're asking for, which was david pecker's testimony. it seemed to be on why he didn't ultimately fulfill the agreement that he struck with michael cohen after of course, he paid the $150,000 to the rights the life rights for karen mcdougal, in addition to also paying for her to do other work for them that never really materialized. but but he essentially was asking that and then he after speaking with the general counsel at ami, testified that he backed off of it and didn't want michael kong to pay him back anymore, which david pecker for those who remember on day one of this trial really getting underway he testified that michael cohen was angry about that, but he kinda went ballistic after david pecker said, no, thanks. i don't actually want you to pay me back for this $150,000 it is really confusing exactly what they were asking for there

because they're talking again about david pecker's decision. i've gotten the exact quote and we know other people are confused about this. his decision not to finalize it fund the assignment, does it mean what you were just talking about? the fact that he didn't get refunded and why? because we know that they did pay for $50,000 to karen mcdougal. so it'd be helpful if the jury was able to clarify that note. but again, we have no idea why the buzzer has gone off. once again while we continue to wait for the lawyers to decide which portions of the transcripts will be read read back. so a lot happening inside, but not exactly clear what it means and amazing that they have to communicate by note with the judge. a person, buzzers, notes, the foreperson contacting the judge, brynn boris, obviously are we are waiting to get more clarification on what exactly the jury is trying to get clarification on here with these two buzzers now, going off inside that courtroom behind yeah, maybe there will be a carrier pigeon. >> i mean, it just it's quite it's quite from another era. i think caitlin are at, let's let's sort of pull back a little bit and talk about this.

will there are a few different conversations, but the one that they want david pecker's testimony about an michael cohen's testimony about is this trump tower meeting. we should remind our viewers what the prosecution and the defense said about this meeting in their closing arguments and what the prosecution was saying is that this is really a prism through which the jury should be looking at the case at the charging conference last week, the parties debated over language for definition of the phrase normal legitimate press function to be read to the jury and russians instruction on the law. and that's critical to this because this conversation where they came up with this catch and kill scenario, david pecker, national enquirer, they're going to be padding down negative stories. they're gonna be playing up positive stories of trump's opponents of course, the prosecution wants jurors to say this is in the service of the campaign. the real game changer of this meeting. this is a quote was the catch and kill component.

and that's the illegal part because once money starts changing hands on behalf of the king campaign, that's federal election campaign finance violations. and this jury is asking, is there something illegal or not on the flip side, the defense basically saying now this is normal, this is just what people do is what famous people do let's go back. it's funny. we're almost at the end of the hour. go back to where we start at least started interrupt. it sounds like we have another node in moments will know what it is. perhaps another request for more testimony, we shall wait and see the really quickly go back to where we started falsifying business records, felony falsification of business records. okay falsifying records to commit or conceal another crime, that crime either being conspiracy to interfere with elections tax crime, or campaign finance. ghraieb, what's happening here, this meeting as alleged is where these three parties hatched a scheme. this is according to the prosecution, or at least laid the groundwork for his scheme to catch and kill to suppress these stories for pay in order to benefit the trump campaign. pain in order

to succeed, prosecutors need to establish in some way that donald trump knew full well or even participated directly in this scheme to benefit his campaign by suppressing these store that's what they're talking about. we have we just got to an update. >> the jury node. they asked to rehear the judges instruction i think i just he said, oh, my goodness. >> so the judge the judge spent an hour this morning going through 50 some pages of legal instructions, and it sounds like the jury is saying, we want to hear them all again, because as i'm reading this week, the jury request to rehear the judge's instructions. now, sometimes juries will come back and say, can you please reread us the part about federal election fraud or can please reread us the part about reasonable doubt. this sounds like they want to hear the whole thing again, it's also interesting that it comes just after they passed. so we're testimony again, i'm not in the predictions business, but i will bet you an ice cream cream

soda that the judge comes back and says, if there are specific instructions you wish to here, please let me know and i we'll work out with the attorneys. >> what i can and should share with you. i am almost certain. i don't know if you're going to agree with this or not. i think you might that he's not going to sit there and read them were not on yes. >> that's literally just what happens as you were saying that we got the life femur sean is going to bring the jury into inquire if they want to hear all of the jury instructions or just a portion of it, neither side, like actual buoyancy. i just saw it and just new way you said and also this just underscores the craziness of not sending the jury instruction back. i mean, most federal judges will send the packet here's why denying ourselves law is that right? >> it's the way it's the way the new york state courts do it. >> they are obstinate, they are stuck in the past. they're making life difficult on the jury found when i when i clerked for a federal judge, federal trial judge, he would insist that we make them pristine in terms of no typos perfect formatting mixture that let's squeaky clean because

these may end up going back to the jury and you want to make sure not just that the words are right, but that you have clean document that's going down to them. >> all right. we have just a few moments before this all wraps up or before we wrap up here and pass off to jake tapper, what is what does this moment and tell you because you might have both sides spinning it at some point. >> it tells me that the jury instructions were way too much for any human being to absorb and they always always all right. but it's actually really interest. i've actually never seen this before. i've never seen a jury just come back and say, we need to hear the whole thing over. they usually are much more specific. so i don't know who i like this. i don't love this as the prosecutor, but i think just say i don't want this kind of just we want to start all over it, but i don't think they're just shooting from the hip. they want to hear what the law whether it's conviction or acquittal or whatever, or whether it's just one juror who needs to be sent straight about something it doesn't seem like they're shooting from the hip. they want to know what the what the law says. anyone here to roughly three-and-a-half hours in a testimony, we get one request about an hour

would be red and then of course, both sides suddenly entering this game of trying to figure out what exactly it means. you tried to read the much. briana. >> all right. so as we wait to see what exactly that buzzer means, let's go through some of the scenarios, the possible outcomes in this historic trial. we have cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, elliot williams

here with us lay out some of the possibilities. elliott, what the jury could absolutely. >> briana now, there are the two big ones the jury can't convict, or acquit the defendant. >> now the important and to be clear, these are the only two verdicts that are possible. now, explain that the second. now, what's required here for conviction or acquittal is unanimity of these 12 people. they all have to agree on the outcome. so if they're split, that is not a conviction or an acquittal, and those are the two big ones, guilty or not guilty? okay. >> but what if they can't decide and how often does that happen? >> it doesn't happen incredibly often now, it might be the case here, feelings are high about this, about this matter. there's so who knows what happens there now, if they can't, the system tries to force that unanimous outcome and the judge will give what's called an allen charge. this big and it's pages long, pages and pages long. but the big thing is that last line, please continue to deliberate with a view towards reaching a

verdict. the judge is going to try to push the jurors to come to some unanimous conclusion. whatever it may be, whether it is a conviction or an acquittal, they will push that now, why? hi, i said it's not a verdict if it's not and our constitution requires that number one, if it's tries to push folks toward getting nvted you can't try someone again, if they've been convicted or acquitted. this is the double jeopardy provision in the constitution that's really what happens here now, if they're not and if the big one can agree, if they just can't agree, you got a hung jury and that can be if literally one juror says, i'm just not going to go along with it. that can be after multiple allen charges. i've seen where the judge instructed the jury two or three times to try to go back in the room and come to some consensus and it just didn't happen. it can be one, it could be three or four, whatever it is, i think a lot norman rockwell print where the

11 jurors are talking to the in this case, it's a woman, it's a woman and there's 11 men, but they're trying to convince let's hear it clearly to find consensus with them. yeah. if the jury does decide that trump is guilty, then what proceeds from there, what's next? >> so sentencing, if he's guilty. now, this is the indictment here. and remember words we've heard again and again and again, he he's charged with falsifying business records in the first degree. that is a felony under new york law, particularly it's what's called a class e felony, which carries with it a four-year maximum sentence. now, all within the sound of my voice, take heed donald trump is likely not going to jail for four years. very few people ever get the statutory maximum. it's just not common. now, what will the judge do in deciding how to sentence? and that's sort of why he won't some of the things that the judge will consider. number one, the criminal history of the defendant, this defendant, donald trump, doesn't have a criminal history, so that'll factor to his benefit. has the

accepted responsibility shown remorse said he was sorry. i don't see that happening here is the danger to the community, a risk, and so on. and finally, what effect might this have on the defendant or other people deterring them from future conduct, misconduct. now, i guess the question of does he lose any rights? if he's convicted and he really well might after going through all the appeals, a convicted felon in the state of florida notably loses the right to vote loses the right to serve on a jury, loses the right to hold public office. which will be interesting and cannot possess a firearm so you, you relinquish many, many rights by being convicted of a felony as of may the case here, it's an important reminder, elliott are let's go straight now back to new york into paula reid. paula, i know that you're learning some more. what can you tell us? >> so we're getting live updates again from our colleagues e inside the courtroom. there was this buzzer that went off. typically that signals that the jury has some sort of need. we anticipate that this could be a

question, but at this point, we don't know exactly what it is that the jury is trying to communicate. so far, folks, trickling back into the courtroom reporters were the first inside the room. now we've learned that trump has returned to the courtroom. his attorney, todd blanche is whispering to him right now prosecutors have also entered the courtroom. we are still waiting though on the judge and the jury to figure out exactly why it is that they rang this buzzer was again widely anticipated that this jury would have questions after a few hours of deliberations but at this point, our colleagues are inside the courtroom and they say, no one has informed them of exactly what is going on. no one has confirmed whether this is a question or if this is something else. we are watching and waiting for the judge to re-enter the courtroom along with the jury to figure out exactly what is happening. now, the jury has been deliberating for a little over 3.5 half hours. >> again, this is a historic decision, but they have to undertake, they are contemplating 34 counts. >> when you think about the challenge of 12 people trying

to vote unanimously one way or the other are 34 counts. that is an incredibly difficult undertaking. it's not clear at they're going to be able to get unit immediate cross either their conviction or acquittal, or if those will be a mixed verdict where they could potentially convict on some counts right now though we're hoping that maybe if this is a question that could provide some insight right into exactly where they are in deliberations there and our colleagues inside they're updating as minute by minute whenever anything happens. and as of right now, still waiting for the judge return to the bench it could happen at any moment. we are anticipating what is going to come from the jury. this potential first question after three hours and 40 minutes of deliberation, let's expand the conversation out with cnn, senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elie honig. we also have elliot williams back with us and richard gabriel is joining us as well. he's a trial i'll consultant. who's assisted in nearly 2000 cases, including oj simpson casey anthony, and the enron trials, as well. >> elie, just about two hours ago, we were talking about the

potential of some communication from the jury. >> you said it could be anything they could come out and say that they didn't like roast beef for lunch? yeah. >> what do you anticipating this month? let me give you the four possibilities what this could be. it couldn't be a request for further legal instruction. hey, judge, you told us this morning about the reasonable doubt standard. can you elaborate on that? that kinda legal question? it could be requests for testimony, judge. we'd like to hear michael cohen's testimony about the august 2015 meeting in which case they'll bring the jury out. >> the court reporter will then do a read back off the transcript and then they'll go back and continue deliberating. >> it could be what i would call logistical or miscellaneous requests. like you said, it's too hot in here. can you turn the thermostat down? we'd like to go late. we need office supplies, that kind of thing. or and i say, let's be very cautious. it could be a verdict as well. so those are the four possibilities. >> i just want to update our viewers, judge juan merchan is now back in the room and just in or producers are feeding as the information in, there were reporters in the courtroom. we have a note from the jury we're waiting to find out exactly

what it entails as elie noted, it could be a number of things what do you think it might be this early on? >> oh my goodness. >> you all we always go through this same possible. he got to stop you know, it it really could just be a question at this point, i would think so. this is a little early for them to say, oh my god, we can't possibly come to a conclusion. usually it's after a couple of days or it might be want to put a time to mount on it two or three hours would be a very short time for them to say that we can't come to an agreement, so i don't think they're deadlocked, but my guess is it's probably just a question for the court. i don't know though. >> let's go back now to paula. she has more information on the buzzer, then the note. what can you tell us paula all right. so they've received a note from the jury and it contains four different requests. we're getting these live updates. they're coming in and real-time from our colleagues. one of the requests is one, the jury requests david pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with donald trump

while pecker was and they're there might feel typo here was in a meeting. so this is something that we have signaled. they might ask for is specific portions of testimony from key witnesses because they do have a laptop that container he's lot of the documents at the heart of this case, but they don't have transcripts from witness testimony. and obviously this case in many ways, as heavily reliant on the testimony of witnesses. so fully expected that they would come back and ask for additional portions of testimony. here. they're asking for a specific portion of testimony from david pecker. now, another one of the requests was pecker's testimony 20 regarding the trump tower meeting. now there is another request for cohen's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting. those are three of the four requests we're getting these live updates this is interesting though that two of these requests relate to the trump tower meeting. this is the 2015 trump tower meeting that prosecutors argue began this alleged conspiracy see you to try to suppress negative stories to help trump win in

2016, we're learning the additional requests that has come in is again, pecker testimony about a decision not to finalize and find that the assignment of mcdougal of one of the aspects of the deal with mcdougal. again, this is coming in real time, but this is it's interesting, particularly the fact that they're so focused on the trump tower meeting because yesterday and closing statements prosecutor spent a lot of time going through the alleged conspiracy she to help trump win in 2016. now that is significant because the reason that is 34 counts of falsifying business records have been charged as a felony, whose prosecutors argue that this was all part of a conspiracy to help trump win in 2016? team. and they argue that this alleged conspiracy began with that trump tower meeting. so it appears that the jury, during their nearly four hours of deliberations right now, that this is something that they want to see more closely. what michael cohen and david pecker testified about. now, we're told that the parties are

preparing where the judge has said that he'll be in the robing room until the parties are ready to begin. now, he said he's gonna bring the jury and plus alternates, and he is going to read the testimony back to they're not going to get a copy i'll be a bit instead, it's going to be read back to them and he's giving both sides a little bit of time to prepare. he stepped off the bench so this could be a little bit a little bit before they bring the jury back in. it's interesting, they're also keeping the alternates there because the judge said that he may need their services at some point. so the judge has stepped down from the bench and now we wait until everyone comes back in, including the jury, and then they're going to get to hear these specific portions of testimony that they have or requested. but this is a little window into how far they've gotten in there deliberations but definitely some key portions of testimony from david pecker and michael cohen that they would like to revisit all right. paula, super helpful. thank you so much for sharing that with us. now you don't elite have to guess anymore. that's the note four requests. what do you make of

what the jury is asieh think they're trying to get their heads around the concept of intent on the part of donald trump. what did he know and what did he say? what recounting, what might have been discussed by these three central figures, donald trump, david pecker, and michael cohen, and all of this goes to intact because of the fact that prosecutors will have to establish donald trump either knew he was directing a scheme or was participating in it, or was a party to it. and simply that whatever was carried out was not done by michael cohen acting rogue. so that at least on those two that regard to the trump tower meeting, i think that's a key to these requests are focused and their deep tailed and specific and frankly, as a prosecutor, i'd like to see right. i've gotten wacky jury notes where i said, oh, no, they're off on some tangent. this is right down the middle of where you want them to b. and if you track the closing argument that we heard from the ada steinglass yesterday, he cast that trump tower meeting august 2015 as

chapter one of this whole story. that's where it all started. that's when trump, pecker cohen maybe hope hicks a little unclear if she was there. got together and decided, okay. we're going to use the power of the national enquirer or to try to help donald trump politically. so it's a perfectly natural, logical place for the jury to start and to clarify, when we say a question that's completely off-base. i mean, really off base. and just to make something up, i'm making this up here just disclosure. but in this case, we all this evidence about hope hicks and michael cohen and so on. and they come back with a question about, how does an accountant get licensed in the state of new york literally, you get questions like that. sometimes times that might seem relevant to someone who doesn't know the case, but have nothing to do with what they're actually there to decide. >> let's get some perspective from richard, who's been standing by patiently as we've been awaiting news that the jury's made these requests about testimony from david pecker and michael cohen as well richard, how do you read this well, this is fairly normal. >> it's a pretty complicated case. it's been going five weeks, really complicated

instructions, and they just got those instructions obviously this morning. so they're obviously tracking a few things. obviously, the intent issue is very important to them, but this can be either a single juror who has this request or it can be the body of jurors. so the thing to remember is that there in the middle of deliberations and deliberations can happen in a variety of ways. they can happen where they go around and say, okay, what questions do we have? they can be start at the beginning and say that that's obviously something that it may be tracking right now, let's start at the beginning and work our way chronologically through the center of the case and see what questions we have to see whether it meets these these parts of the evidentiary issues that we need to decide. i think the jurors are then trying to grab their heads around some of these issues and trying to the match them to the specific jury instructions regarding solicitation request, commanding intentionally a1 or whether concealing causing a

false entry in these are all the legal language, but then they're trying to match up the evidence to try and figure out how does that track where we're supposed to be going? going on these verdict questions. >> are you encouraged richard by this kind of verdict or pardon me by this kind of jury question yes i am. >> i mean, it says that they are tracking the evidence in obviously, we've got a very smart and sophisticated jury. you've got two lawyers to financial folks. you've got engineers and a teacher and physical therapy. you've got very smart people on there. so they are really working through this and they are tracking the actual evidence in the case. obviously see they're looking at the words they want to hear the testimony to see whether there is testimony that matches some of these jury instructions. and then how does that match up with the verdict questions? so i'm encouraged that they are working diligently through the evidence in the case alright, richard, thank you so much. let's go back to new york where our

kaitlan collins and kristen holmes are kaitlan. so here we are looking at this note which has four requests, pretty detailed requests yeah. >> and what they clearly are asking to have read back to them is different portions of testimony from two key witnesses. the first witness, david pecker, who of course force is the tabloid king who talked about those deals to catch and kill stories. a meeting that he had with donald trump and michael cohen about how to help the trump campaign as it was taking off and then there also asking for michael cohen's testimony about a meeting at trump tower and what's interesting about this and what's important to keep in mind is right now, attorneys are preparing to address a jury note with these four requests, the judge it's actually a robing room right now. is all of this is going on because they have to assemble the parts of this testimony, bring the entire jury, including the four alternatives, back into the courtroom. two then read this testimony back to them when the jury makes her requests like this, they don't just get all the testimony handed to them in a transcript form instead, it is rented them by the judge

chair. i've got paula reid and kristen holmes here with me and paul. obviously this is the first note that we have gotten there nearly four hours into deliberations. and clearly, we knew this juror was going to take their job seriously, but it is interesting that these are the two witnesses that they're asking to hear more tests good morning from yeah. >> i think it's notable that they were focused on david pecker. it suggests that they're going through this case perhaps chronologically, right. because this is some of this goes back to 2015 that initial trump tower meeting where they discussed how pecker would be trump's eyes and ears that he would try to help him win the white house by using the national enquirer the press negative stories amplify ones that could help him now it's unclear exactly what this tells us about how while there are deliberating, but it does again, it suggests that they're going through chronologically. >> yeah. we shouldn't read too much, obviously into it. we don't know or have a window, we don't even know if it's one juror are multiple jurors who asked for this well, i just want to bring up one thing because this reminder from what we saw yesterday, from the

prosecution when they were giving their closing arguments, one of the things that joshua steinglass pointed to when he's talking to the jury hers was pecker's testimony. he called it utterly he said it was devastating. and he told the jurors to focus on it, saying that essentially it's a loan it alone establishes one of the three elements prosecutors have to prove in the case that conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election. >> so he really put a lot of focus on david pecker. >> and now we're seeing the jury asking questions about that, and we'll know exactly which portions or read back to them. i know the judge essentially in his instructions, ask the jury two but as much clarity as possible on which portions exactly they want read back to them, because that's how they communicate is through this note. and what david pecker had testified though, was that it had been reported that trump in the david pecker to trump, michael cohen and trump initially and asked them how he could help with the campaign, what he testified to as they approached him, they set up this meeting and they asked david pecker how he could help their campaign,

which obviously we saw the ways they did so not just with karen mcdougal, but also with ted cruz ben carson, and marco rubio implanting these negative false, vicious stories about trump's challengers and the reason that this testimony from david pecker assistance significant because it sets up what prosecutors allege was a conspiracy. >> it conspiracy to suppress negative stories, amplified positive ones, and then falsified business records to cover up what they had done. so this is the beginning of what prosecutors alleged. is this conspiracy. and again, the reason that the documents that were allegedly falsified have been charges, felonies is because they argue that all of this was done to help trump win in 2016 team and david pecker's testimony sets that up. so the fact that they're asking about this, it is significant, it's a core part of the case and it really in many ways makes sense. of course, they're going to want to hear for this again, this is one of the first witnesses that they heard from. they don't have a transcript and it's not surprising at all that they're going to want to refresh their recollection and just refresh themselves on exactly what it is testified to.

>> why did they not have a transcript of the testimony that they can just they can consult a computer that has the evidence on it and the exhibits that they saw. why hint they read the transcripts of testimony from witnesses like david pecker themselves. >> it's not clear to me why they don't provide i would give them everything. right. full transparency. i'd also cameras in the courtroom. >> it i would guess i think we should ask them of our experts who've actually worked inside the courtroom, but i would guess they also don't want them to get bogged down. >> remember, he also instructed them at the beginning of the trial nearly seven weeks ago that don't rely on your notes, right? don't rely too much on your notes, don't treat those as a transcript. just take some notes. so it appears that they just don't want them two married to any specific document or transcript and said they want them to engage in deliberations of bring it all together in the david pecker testimony, you for this jury that has been here for now going on when the seventh week, david pecker was witnessed. >> number one, he was the first person they heard from and he was such an interesting witness for the prosecution, cross into pick first, but because he

doesn't have an ax to grind against donald trump, he actually wanted donald trump to be president. he visited him when he was inside the white house. he made very clear that there is vocal in year are since old this began, but they made very clear that they had no he issues with him, but he did have a lot of insight and a lot of information and a lot of testimony fronts for, decades. >> so he had known donald trump for quite a long time. one of the things i remember being so notable about david pecker's testimony was about the election and was about trump's feelings towards the election. he testified and those early days that when he had been helping donald trump with these stories the national enquirer placing them are warning people near him about them but. it used to be about not wanting to upset a wonka or melania, or upset his family. but at some point, it turned to being about the election and his campaign. that was his early on on testimony. so that itself kind of shows you the evolution of david pecker's relationship. and i will note as you said, there is no ill-will between the two of them. in fact, pecker seem to be he kinda

smiling at the defense table at times waving at one of the lawyers that one of the points looking as those who is engaging with them and donald trump himself positive things to say about david pecker to the point where it actually got brought up in a gag order hearing later because he talked about the witness that your question it was whether or not they out of relationships don't he said he was doing a good job, but he actually didn't mind his testimony. >> yeah. david pecker also had an immunity agreement, a non-prosecution agreement that might have been the reason he was smiling as well. obviously, boris i'm briana or or we're at a notable moment here is the jury has been deliberating for going on for hours now, we're waiting to see exactly which portions of this testimony it is that once they are back inside courtroom, they will have the judge then read to them as they are proceeding with these deliberations on the big question is how the jury is going tont kaitlan, please standby. let's pose that question. so in that katelyn just asked paula to folks that have tried cases in court before. >> why doesn't the jury get a physical copy of the testimony i think a couple of things. one, i believe it was paula

hood said that they might get boring and down and it has handed i mean, you're talking about how many thousands of pages do multiple multiple thousands of pages of document, right? because you think it's 20 plus witnesses spread over several weeks. so number one, number two. and we were talking about this a little but in the break the paper copy of the transcript itself is not evidenced, believe it or not, the words of the witnesses themselves are, but this is not at least as of today probably not a verified authentic, authenticated transcript or whatever else. and they may have there may be an issue with just providing it wholesale to the witnesses, at least in new york yeah. >> let me give an observation on this note now, let's start with a disclaimer. >> this is the ultimate of pseudoscience is anytime you're trying to read into juror body language or even no, it's because any of this can mean anything. it could mean we just don't know and water fresh ourselves. it could mean ten of us are dead set on what weigh in too, are having questions. but i do think we can safely glean the following sometimes juries go witnessed by witness, they go, let's start with

witness one. what did he say? what did witness to say here? >> the note asks for testimony from the very first witness, david pecker, and the very last witness, michael cohen. >> so it's quite clear to me they're not proceeding witnessed by witness. what it seems are doing is proceeding chronologically alone. the timeline of the story, which because again, the august 2015 meeting is chapter one. it's where this whole plot gets hatched according to the de, again with all the caveats if i'm the prosecutor, i like that. i want them to look at this case chronologically, the way the da laid out his closing yesterday was i'm going to tell you a story. it begins in august 20 15th. >> so it seems like they're following that sort of linear timeline, which is a natural way that people consume stories. >> so i think it's safe to glean that from this note. >> one thing you notice in terms of moving chronologically what they have not asked for as the testimony of stormy daniel's who would have testified two events happening as far back as i think 2006 again, don't read too much into it, but the major sort of

the plot being hatches elliott it noted when if we're talking about a conspiracy, whatever else here was at least in and around that 2015 meeting let's zoom in on pecker's testimony about the decision not to finalize and on the assignment of karen mcdougal's life rights, let's just remind our viewers what happened there, right there was this agreement we're basically there was going to be payment from the trump camp for this has been in the end, pecker says, don't is not what happened refresh your memory about what happened. >> he said actually, don't worry about it. this note is a little confusing because what happened was david pecker at ami, the national enquirer. >> they ended up paying the $150,000 for karen mcdougal's life rights. and then essentially getting stiffer by trump and cohen and the trump organization, which sets the stage for the next transaction, the stormy daniel's transaction. where early on pecker's talking about it with cohen and then pecker says, we're out of here because we don't want to get stiff. again, it's starting to get a little dicey maybe with campaign finance stuff so the

way they phrased the question is a little confusing, but i also want to know this. it's not always obvious what pieces of testimony are responsive to the note and sometimes the lawyers will disagree sometimes it's quite obvious, right. okay. david pecker's testimony about the august 2015 meeting, easy to find that, but his testimony about reading from the note the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of karen mcdougal's life rights that could be 2030 pages of testimony, maybe not even consented get it. so what the lawyers are doing right now is they're sitting there with a mountain of transcripts, thousands of pages. maybe the word searching, and they're saying, okay, question one, can we agree that that's page for 84 lines 23 through 4902? >> but there is there is such a thing as the lawyers disagreeing on what's responsive. yeah, this is an important point here ultimately, it's the judge's decision over what to provide to the jurors. now i'm often a judge will simply say, okay, folks, i'm just going to provide them page six of this. you good with that? fine sometimes the judge will

solicit the opinions of both parties and work something out. sometimes they'll have extended debate back-and-forth now, this is a little more simple because you're just talking about pages of transcript testimony. so i'm just going to decide how much of it if it's a question of how do we explain the concept of race? isn't build-out. how do we explain again to the jurors what their role is? they may come back with a question like that. they'll go back and forth and then ultimately the judge will make a call as to how much to provide it at all. sometimes the judge will say, just go back i provide you all the information you need work it out everyone, please stand by. >> we're going to squeeze in a quick break. we're going to be back in just a few minutes. stay with cnn on a historic moment. and the trump trial this situation room with wolf blitzer didn't night it six. once cnn with so many choices on booking.com, there are so many tina phases. >> i could be hired body doubles to help me out splurging. tina loves a hotel

near rodeo drive tina tina book to farm state to ride this horse glenn close was melians are possibilities you can book whoever you want to be that's my line. booking.com looking. >> yeah. >> only purples gel flex grid passes the raw egg test. no other matters. cradles your body and simultaneously supports your spine. memory foam doesn't come close get your best sleep guaranteed, save up to $800 during our memorial day sale visit, purple.com or store near you simply save your safety is the only thing that matters. >> we designed smarter ways to detect motion for fast emergency response we create hd cameras, so you could see what's happening in your home from anywhere. all powered by fast protect technology exclusively from simply say for faster police response. now install our advanced system. your way have a pro, set it up, or easily do it yourself.

there's no safe like simply safe whenever i get a pool with dr. time, you'll get the real deal. time real deal lets you customize the real down payment and monthly payment of the car you want to buy super smart and the deal you make on your phone is the deal you paid get the real deal had tried to him.com. if you spit blood when you brush, it could be the start of a domino effect new periodontics act of gumbert pair breath freshener, clinically proven help reverse the four signs of early gum disease a new toothpaste from periodontics, the dom experts. >> i want a lot of businesses, so my ten and my network need to keep up. thank you. verizon business now, our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same node worked up powers our phones. >> so whatever is next, we're cooking with fire switch to the partner. >> businesses rely on ego, the number one rated brandon cordless outdoor power brings you the ego power plus string trimmer with how will load technology be the line push the button, and get back to work

iga exclusively at lows as and ego authorized dealers came missing out on before you were preventing migraine with cuba. remember the pain so pretty the canceled plans and logan, me now, you will never truly forget migraine, but qlik to reduces attacks making zero migraine days possible if the only pill of its kind, the block cgrp and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency i'll, give you that. forget you get migraine feeling, don't take if allergic to q lepto most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and sleepiness. learn how abby could help you save. >> he leaped. there. that forget get migraine medicine, liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. >> that's great. >> i know i've been telling everyone how many people did you tell only pay for what you need buggy with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, my